On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:18:46AM +0800, Aaron Zang wrote: > >>The main difference between lock_lint and warlock is that warlock (actually > >>wlanalyze which warlock calls and does the main job) has a command line > >>interface which can be used to accept a command file (.wlcmd files in > >>ON source tree). This is because warlock is written as a shell script but > >>lock_lint is written in C. And this command line interface is critical to > >>ON. > >>If we want lock_lint to provide the same interface, the design is very weird > >>and ugly. I think Alexander has already mentioned that. > > I don't know other warlock users than ON, and I don't understand what do > you mean by "support a better interface". Do you mean to use totally > another tool instead of warlock or do you mean to enhance warlock to > provide a better interface?
The latter. You talk about how warlock's interface is ugly and trying to make lock_lint do what it does would be painful because of it. But if there's only one consumer of warlock (us), we can make the effort to adopt whatever new interface you'd introduce in order to remove warlock entirely and integrate its functionality -- in a clean way -- into lock_lint. ON is not wedded to warlock and the .wlcmd syntax, if there's a better/cleaner/cheaper/more maintainable way to do it. That's all I meant; hope that's clearer. Danek _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
